Sensitivity and specificity of different antibody tests for detecting varicella-zoster virus

Antibody tests for detecting varicella-zoster virus include the fluorescent-antibody-to-membrane-antigen (FAMA) assay, immune adherence hemagglutination assay (IAHA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and the glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). Although FAMA and gpELISA are highl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy 2020-12, Vol.26 (12), p.1283-1287
Hauptverfasser: Otani, Naruhito, Shima, Masayuki, Tanimura, Susumu, Ueda, Takashi, Ichiki, Kaoru, Nakajima, Kazuhiko, Takesue, Yoshio, Honjo, Kenta, Okuno, Toshiomi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Antibody tests for detecting varicella-zoster virus include the fluorescent-antibody-to-membrane-antigen (FAMA) assay, immune adherence hemagglutination assay (IAHA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and the glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). Although FAMA and gpELISA are highly sensitive, FAMA is not available commercially. Therefore, this study was performed to compare potential high-sensitivity tests with commercially available tests. Four antibody tests, FAMA, gpELISA, EIA, and IAHA, were performed using sera collected from 32 children aged 7 months–10 years. Using FAMA as a reference, the sensitivity and specificity of gpELISA, EIA, and IAHA were assessed. Subsequently, using gpELISA as a reference, the positive agreement rate of EIA and IAHA was assessed. On a reference scale with FAMA set at 100%, the sensitivity and specificity of the antibody tests were as follows: gpELISA, 67% and 100%; EIA, 67% and 100%; and IAHA, 47% and 100%, respectively. The positive agreement rates of EIA and IAHA relative to gpELISA were 86% and 64%, respectively. Conclusions: gpELISA had a lower positive rate than did FAMA, and showed comparable sensitivity to that of EIA.
ISSN:1341-321X
1437-7780
DOI:10.1016/j.jiac.2020.07.012